Comments on proposal 2014-04 (Remove the IPv6 Requirement for receiving address space)
Hi, Our comment on thIs proposal is: We would not support this proposal to Remove the IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8. This is because his policy encourages ripe members to start the process of using ipv6 addresses, and that given the shortage of ipv4 space migration is becoming increasingly important. By changing this policy we believe this will give out the wrong signals to the industry about ipv6 migration. Best Regards, Daniel Davis Director Blue Sky Systems Limited Tel: 03300 101 550<tel:03300%20101%20550> Mobile: 07718 425 855<tel:07718%20425%20855> Email: daniel@blueskysystems.co.uk<mailto:daniel@blueskysystems.co.uk> Web: www.blueskysystems.co.uk<http://www.blueskysystems.co.uk/> Registered Office: Unit 16 Horizon Business Village, 1 Brooklands Road, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0TJ<x-apple-data-detectors://1>. Registered in England No: 8856125<tel:8856125>.
Hi, On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:09:50AM +0000, Daniel Davis wrote:
Our comment on thIs proposal is: We would not support this proposal to Remove the IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8. This is because his policy encourages ripe members to start the process of using ipv6 addresses, and that given the shortage of ipv4 space migration is becoming increasingly important. By changing this policy we believe this will give out the wrong signals to the industry about ipv6 migration.
This argument has been brought up before, and I consider it addressed (by asking the RIPE NCC to send very clear signals regarding IPv6 encouragements to future applicants, and also increasing their general IPv6 outreach). Last Call is there to bring up arguments opposing the proposal that have not been voiced and answered before - like, some completely new angle hat has been overlooked. As always, consensus does not have to be unanimous if there is sufficiently strong support. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Gert, I don't consider this argument as being addressed by simply asking the RIPE NCC to send out clear signals that IPv6 is important. There is a difference between being forced to request an IPv6 allocation to receive IPv4 space from the final /8 and the RIPE NCC sending out some signals regarding IPv6. From my point of view, this argument hasn't been really addressed; some agreed with it and some didn't. If the majority agrees with this proposal that's fine for me; and I can live with that. However, as the one who brought up this argument a few weeks ago in the first place please allow me to tell you that I think it is not addressed by simply asking the RIPE NCC to send out some signals. The proposed policy change will speed up the shortage of IPv4 space; and therefore I still strongly oppose this proposal. By the way, this proposal would increase prices on the IPv4 transfer market (due to it speeding up the shortening of the free IPv4 address space); and that is generally nothing that's good for the community, either. Kind Regards, Stefan Schiele Am 22.01.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:09:50AM +0000, Daniel Davis wrote:
Our comment on thIs proposal is: We would not support this proposal to Remove the IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8. This is because his policy encourages ripe members to start the process of using ipv6 addresses, and that given the shortage of ipv4 space migration is becoming increasingly important. By changing this policy we believe this will give out the wrong signals to the industry about ipv6 migration. This argument has been brought up before, and I consider it addressed (by asking the RIPE NCC to send very clear signals regarding IPv6 encouragements to future applicants, and also increasing their general IPv6 outreach).
Last Call is there to bring up arguments opposing the proposal that have not been voiced and answered before - like, some completely new angle hat has been overlooked.
As always, consensus does not have to be unanimous if there is sufficiently strong support.
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
Hi Stefan, On 22/01/15 12:38, Stefan Schiele wrote: [...]
The proposed policy change will speed up the shortage of IPv4 space; and therefore I still strongly oppose this proposal. I do not think there will be any difference in how much IPv4 will be requested/allocated from the last /8 if the policy changes. I could easily just use the LIR Portal 3-click request and get an IPv6 allocation if it's one of the steps in requesting the IPv4 allocation. It does not mean that I will actually use it or do anything with it. It's just a step in the process of me getting the /22 I wanted.
By the way, this proposal would increase prices on the IPv4 transfer market (due to it speeding up the shortening of the free IPv4 address space); and that is generally nothing that's good for the community, either.
I doubt it will have any effect. The RIPE NCC still has more than a /8 in /22s (18.55 mil IP addresses) [1] and can allocate the /22s for at least 5-10 years (my personal opinion is that it will never stop allocating the /22s). Regards, Elvis [1] https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po...
Kind Regards,
Stefan Schiele
Am 22.01.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:09:50AM +0000, Daniel Davis wrote:
Our comment on thIs proposal is: We would not support this proposal to Remove the IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8. This is because his policy encourages ripe members to start the process of using ipv6 addresses, and that given the shortage of ipv4 space migration is becoming increasingly important. By changing this policy we believe this will give out the wrong signals to the industry about ipv6 migration. This argument has been brought up before, and I consider it addressed (by asking the RIPE NCC to send very clear signals regarding IPv6 encouragements to future applicants, and also increasing their general IPv6 outreach).
Last Call is there to bring up arguments opposing the proposal that have not been voiced and answered before - like, some completely new angle hat has been overlooked.
As always, consensus does not have to be unanimous if there is sufficiently strong support.
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
-- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Executive Officer Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
Hi Elvis, Am 22.01.2015 um 13:04 schrieb Elvis Daniel Velea:
[...]
The proposed policy change will speed up the shortage of IPv4 space; and therefore I still strongly oppose this proposal. I do not think there will be any difference in how much IPv4 will be requested/allocated from the last /8 if the policy changes. I could easily just use the LIR Portal 3-click request and get an IPv6 allocation if it's one of the steps in requesting the IPv4 allocation. It does not mean that I will actually use it or do anything with it. It's just a step in the process of me getting the /22 I wanted.
The current policy actually had a positive effect on our company. The main reason for us to sign up as an LIR was to get more IPv4 addresses; and since we had to request an IPv6 allocation we wanted to have this set up and running. If it had been possible to get that /22 without an IPv6 address space we would probably still be using IPv4 only (the IPv4 address space we currently have is large enough for our business for the foreseeable future). Since this policy had a positive effect on IPv6 awareness for us I simply deduce that it should have a positive effect for some other companies as well. However, that's not just a guess, there is also statistical data regarding this: Andrea Cima from RIPE NCC wrote on 11 December 2014:
The RIPE NCC has started allocating /22s from the last /8 on 14 September 2012. Since then 4190 IPv6 allocations have been made, out of which 1160 are currently visible in the BGP routing tables.
If we take into consideration the total number of IPv6 allocations made by the RIPE NCC, 8398 IPv6 allocations have been made, out of which 4098 are currently visible in the BGP routing tables.
That means that more than 27% of those IPv6 allocations are really used; and that's a quite impressive figure. And I think we can conclude that the current policy does have a positive effect on IPv6 deployment. In comparison about 49% of all IPv6 allocations are visible in the BGP routing table; and that makes that 27% even more impressive.
By the way, this proposal would increase prices on the IPv4 transfer market (due to it speeding up the shortening of the free IPv4 address space); and that is generally nothing that's good for the community, either.
I doubt it will have any effect. The RIPE NCC still has more than a /8 in /22s (18.55 mil IP addresses) [1] and can allocate the /22s for at least 5-10 years (my personal opinion is that it will never stop allocating the /22s).
Any increase in IPv6 awareness is good for lessening the demand for IPv4 addresses. In any free market prices are subject to "supply and demand"; anything that reduces supply or increases demand will make prices go up. I agree with you that the RIPE NCC will not run out of IPv4 address space during the next few years. Given the amount of 18.55 mil IP addresses this is enough for about 18.000 new /22 allocations. Given the data Andrea Cima from RIPE NCC posted on December 11th on this list 4190 IPv6 allocation have been made between 14 September 2012 (the date when the RIPE NCC has started allocation /22s from the last /8) until 11 December 2014 we could estimate that that address space will be sufficient for the next 9-10 years; and even if we take into account that the number of new LIRs will increase in the future I still think that your 5-10 year range is a reasonable estimate. Presumably you agree with me that increasing the IPv6 awareness will help reducing the demand for IPv4 addresses; my personal opinion is that prices for IPv4 addresses on the transfer market will still go up during the next years due to the increasing shortage of available IPv4 address space; however, if we are successful as a community in convincing new and existing LIRs to deploy IPv6 that increase will be lower. I think that forcing anyone who wants to get address space from the last IPv4 to get an IPv6 allocation first won't do any harm to anyone; even if a LIR does not want to deploy IPv6 now they can simply put that allocation on a shelf and deploy it later. And the impressive statistics from the RIPE NCC show that the current policy text helps IPv6 deployment. Kind Regards, Stefan
Regards, Elvis
[1] https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po...
Kind Regards,
Stefan Schiele
Am 22.01.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:09:50AM +0000, Daniel Davis wrote:
Our comment on thIs proposal is: We would not support this proposal to Remove the IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8. This is because his policy encourages ripe members to start the process of using ipv6 addresses, and that given the shortage of ipv4 space migration is becoming increasingly important. By changing this policy we believe this will give out the wrong signals to the industry about ipv6 migration. This argument has been brought up before, and I consider it addressed (by asking the RIPE NCC to send very clear signals regarding IPv6 encouragements to future applicants, and also increasing their general IPv6 outreach).
Last Call is there to bring up arguments opposing the proposal that have not been voiced and answered before - like, some completely new angle hat has been overlooked.
As always, consensus does not have to be unanimous if there is sufficiently strong support.
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
Elvis Daniel Velea
Chief Executive Officer
Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914
Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
I totally agree with Stefan and I support what he said here. ipv6 should be a must. On Jan 22, 2015 6:42 PM, "Stefan Schiele" <st@sct.de> wrote:
Hi Elvis,
Am 22.01.2015 um 13:04 schrieb Elvis Daniel Velea:
[...]
The proposed policy change will speed up the shortage of IPv4 space; and therefore I still strongly oppose this proposal.
I do not think there will be any difference in how much IPv4 will be requested/allocated from the last /8 if the policy changes. I could easily just use the LIR Portal 3-click request and get an IPv6 allocation if it's one of the steps in requesting the IPv4 allocation. It does not mean that I will actually use it or do anything with it. It's just a step in the process of me getting the /22 I wanted.
The current policy actually had a positive effect on our company. The main reason for us to sign up as an LIR was to get more IPv4 addresses; and since we had to request an IPv6 allocation we wanted to have this set up and running. If it had been possible to get that /22 without an IPv6 address space we would probably still be using IPv4 only (the IPv4 address space we currently have is large enough for our business for the foreseeable future).
Since this policy had a positive effect on IPv6 awareness for us I simply deduce that it should have a positive effect for some other companies as well. However, that's not just a guess, there is also statistical data regarding this:
Andrea Cima from RIPE NCC wrote on 11 December 2014:
The RIPE NCC has started allocating /22s from the last /8 on 14 September 2012. Since then 4190 IPv6 allocations have been made, out of which 1160 are currently visible in the BGP routing tables.
If we take into consideration the total number of IPv6 allocations made by the RIPE NCC, 8398 IPv6 allocations have been made, out of which 4098 are currently visible in the BGP routing tables.
That means that more than 27% of those IPv6 allocations are really used; and that's a quite impressive figure. And I think we can conclude that the current policy does have a positive effect on IPv6 deployment. In comparison about 49% of all IPv6 allocations are visible in the BGP routing table; and that makes that 27% even more impressive.
By the way, this proposal would increase prices on the IPv4 transfer market (due to it speeding up the shortening of the free IPv4 address space); and that is generally nothing that's good for the community, either.
I doubt it will have any effect. The RIPE NCC still has more than a /8 in /22s (18.55 mil IP addresses) [1] and can allocate the /22s for at least 5-10 years (my personal opinion is that it will never stop allocating the /22s).
Any increase in IPv6 awareness is good for lessening the demand for IPv4 addresses. In any free market prices are subject to "supply and demand"; anything that reduces supply or increases demand will make prices go up.
I agree with you that the RIPE NCC will not run out of IPv4 address space during the next few years. Given the amount of 18.55 mil IP addresses this is enough for about 18.000 new /22 allocations. Given the data Andrea Cima from RIPE NCC posted on December 11th on this list 4190 IPv6 allocation have been made between 14 September 2012 (the date when the RIPE NCC has started allocation /22s from the last /8) until 11 December 2014 we could estimate that that address space will be sufficient for the next 9-10 years; and even if we take into account that the number of new LIRs will increase in the future I still think that your 5-10 year range is a reasonable estimate.
Presumably you agree with me that increasing the IPv6 awareness will help reducing the demand for IPv4 addresses; my personal opinion is that prices for IPv4 addresses on the transfer market will still go up during the next years due to the increasing shortage of available IPv4 address space; however, if we are successful as a community in convincing new and existing LIRs to deploy IPv6 that increase will be lower.
I think that forcing anyone who wants to get address space from the last IPv4 to get an IPv6 allocation first won't do any harm to anyone; even if a LIR does not want to deploy IPv6 now they can simply put that allocation on a shelf and deploy it later. And the impressive statistics from the RIPE NCC show that the current policy text helps IPv6 deployment.
Kind Regards, Stefan
Regards, Elvis
[1] https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po...
Kind Regards,
Stefan Schiele
Am 22.01.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:09:50AM +0000, Daniel Davis wrote:
Our comment on thIs proposal is: We would not support this proposal to Remove the IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8. This is because his policy encourages ripe members to start the process of using ipv6 addresses, and that given the shortage of ipv4 space migration is becoming increasingly important. By changing this policy we believe this will give out the wrong signals to the industry about ipv6 migration.
This argument has been brought up before, and I consider it addressed (by asking the RIPE NCC to send very clear signals regarding IPv6 encouragements to future applicants, and also increasing their general IPv6 outreach).
Last Call is there to bring up arguments opposing the proposal that have not been voiced and answered before - like, some completely new angle hat has been overlooked.
As always, consensus does not have to be unanimous if there is sufficiently strong support.
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
-- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Executive Officer
Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net <elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914
Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
Hi, On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 06:55:59PM +0200, Marius Catrangiu wrote:
I totally agree with Stefan and I support what he said here. ipv6 should be a must.
Please understand what "Last Call" is about: *new* arguments that have not be heard in the review or discussion phase, and have not been answered. It is not useful to re-run the same arguments in circles after it has become clear that there is rough consensus the other way (and also remember: rough consensus does not mean "everybody agrees"). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Stefan, On 22/01/2015 16:42, Stefan Schiele wrote:
Andrea Cima from RIPE NCC wrote on 11 December 2014:
The RIPE NCC has started allocating /22s from the last /8 on 14 September 2012. Since then 4190 IPv6 allocations have been made, out of which 1160 are currently visible in the BGP routing tables.
If we take into consideration the total number of IPv6 allocations made by the RIPE NCC, 8398 IPv6 allocations have been made, out of which 4098 are currently visible in the BGP routing tables.
That means that more than 27% of those IPv6 allocations are really used; and that's a quite impressive figure. And I think we can conclude that the current policy does have a positive effect on IPv6 deployment. In comparison about 49% of all IPv6 allocations are visible in the BGP routing table; and that makes that 27% even more impressive.
I disagree with your interpretation: present in the routing table does not imply being used. I used to take it as a good sign, but now I believe it is a very low bar - someone thought to apply for the address space and succeeded in configuring a BGP session somewhere. Maybe they really use it and maybe they don't; it's just not a very useful metric. Note that "arguments supporting the proposal" says that the status quo is actively troublesome for users of IPv6 PI space: to get a /22, they have to disrupt their IPv6 installation to return their PI assignment and get a PA allocation. Having this in policy is currently doing harm to IPv6, and we can do better outreach than this. Best regards, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Project Manager web: www.heanet.ie HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660-3666
Hi Dave, El 22/01/2015 a las 18:15, Dave Wilson escribió:
Note that "arguments supporting the proposal" says that the status quo is actively troublesome for users of IPv6 PI space: to get a /22, they have to disrupt their IPv6 installation to return their PI assignment and get a PA allocation.
This can be solved just modifiyin the IPv6 Requirement, not removing it. Just allowing PI assignments valid for recieving an allocation from the last /8. Easy as that. No troublesome for LIRs with PI assignments and to the ones that dont have any v6 PI/PA Space still in the need to request first for an IPv6. By this way, all happy. Cheers, -- Daniel Baeza
Hi Daniel,
Note that "arguments supporting the proposal" says that the status quo is actively troublesome for users of IPv6 PI space: to get a /22, they have to disrupt their IPv6 installation to return their PI assignment and get a PA allocation.
This can be solved just modifiyin the IPv6 Requirement, not removing it.
It could, but the other arguments already discussed still stand for the proposal as is. :-) I just wanted to remind that the current policy in effect is causing problems. All the best, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Project Manager web: www.heanet.ie HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660-3666
Hi, On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 05:42:06PM +0100, Stefan Schiele wrote:
Andrea Cima from RIPE NCC wrote on 11 December 2014:
The RIPE NCC has started allocating /22s from the last /8 on 14 September 2012. Since then 4190 IPv6 allocations have been made, out of which 1160 are currently visible in the BGP routing tables.
If we take into consideration the total number of IPv6 allocations made by the RIPE NCC, 8398 IPv6 allocations have been made, out of which 4098 are currently visible in the BGP routing tables.
That means that more than 27% of those IPv6 allocations are really used; and that's a quite impressive figure. And I think we can conclude that the current policy does have a positive effect on IPv6 deployment. In comparison about 49% of all IPv6 allocations are visible in the BGP routing table; and that makes that 27% even more impressive.
The nice things about numbers is that you can interpret them any way you like. For me, these numbers tell me: LIRs that have not been *forced* to take a /32 are *more likely* to actually announce it in BGP than those that had to take it as "mandatory" (nearly 50% of all IPv6 allocations in total are in BGP, but only 27% of those after September 2012). You assume that LIRs will only ask for IPv6 because they have to - but that is just wrong. All the "pre /22" LIRs that have IPv6 asked for it because they *wanted* IPv6. [Before anyone chimes in: nobody understands why allocations do not show up in BGP, or why it takes as long as it does for them to show up, and "show up in BGP" is also not a useful metric for "has deployed IPv6 on more than a single router"] [..]
I think that forcing anyone who wants to get address space from the last IPv4 to get an IPv6 allocation first won't do any harm to anyone;
The current policy *does* cause harm for those that have already deployed IPv6 but have done so with PI space - because forcing them to take a PA allocation will also force them to return their PI space and renumber all their existing IPv6 deployment. This is what got the whole ball rolling. You might want to enlighten yourself by reading up the discussion on possible alternative wordings to the policy, and why we ended up with removing the criteria altogether. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hello, Wouldn't relaxing the text (as initially suggested) to require the LIR to have *any* form of IPv6, rather than removing it altogether, be more beneficial to general IPv6 adoption? I fear having no IPv6 requirement at all may encourage the LIR to look into alternatives, such as NAT or the transfer market. Of course the LIR's deployment decision will ultimately come down to QoS, scalability, revenue etc., but I don't see the harm in encouraging the LIR to get some IPv6. After all, it's really very easy to get an IPv6 allocation from the NCC and at no additional cost.. currently :) Receiving their own v6 block may spark an interest in LIRs that previously had no IPv6 plans. Regards, James -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Stefan Schiele Sent: 22 January 2015 12:39 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Comments on proposal 2014-04 (Remove the IPv6 Requirement for receiving address space) Hi Gert, I don't consider this argument as being addressed by simply asking the RIPE NCC to send out clear signals that IPv6 is important. There is a difference between being forced to request an IPv6 allocation to receive IPv4 space from the final /8 and the RIPE NCC sending out some signals regarding IPv6. From my point of view, this argument hasn't been really addressed; some agreed with it and some didn't. If the majority agrees with this proposal that's fine for me; and I can live with that. However, as the one who brought up this argument a few weeks ago in the first place please allow me to tell you that I think it is not addressed by simply asking the RIPE NCC to send out some signals. The proposed policy change will speed up the shortage of IPv4 space; and therefore I still strongly oppose this proposal. By the way, this proposal would increase prices on the IPv4 transfer market (due to it speeding up the shortening of the free IPv4 address space); and that is generally nothing that's good for the community, either. Kind Regards, Stefan Schiele Am 22.01.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:09:50AM +0000, Daniel Davis wrote:
Our comment on thIs proposal is: We would not support this proposal to Remove the IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8. This is because his policy encourages ripe members to start the process of using ipv6 addresses, and that given the shortage of ipv4 space migration is becoming increasingly important. By changing this policy we believe this will give out the wrong signals to the industry about ipv6 migration. This argument has been brought up before, and I consider it addressed (by asking the RIPE NCC to send very clear signals regarding IPv6 encouragements to future applicants, and also increasing their general IPv6 outreach).
Last Call is there to bring up arguments opposing the proposal that have not been voiced and answered before - like, some completely new angle hat has been overlooked.
As always, consensus does not have to be unanimous if there is sufficiently strong support.
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
Hello James, On 22/01/2015 12:38, Kennedy, James wrote:
Wouldn't relaxing the text (as initially suggested) to require the LIR to have *any* form of IPv6, rather than removing it altogether, be more beneficial to general IPv6 adoption? I fear having no IPv6 requirement at all may encourage the LIR to look into alternatives, such as NAT or the transfer market.
Honestly, I don't think it would, no. We'd get some anecdotes like we already have, but nothing systematic. This proposal looks harsh because all a proposal can do is changing the policy text and, taken on its own, that appears to be a negative change. Might as well do something, right? But "something is better than nothing" is just not effective; in fact the thrust of my talk at RIPE68 is that it's worse than useless. Here's one example for this particular case: the number of v6 assignments is not currently a useful measure of interest in IPv6, because it's polluted by assignments to people who only applied because they had to do so to get a /22. As Gert said, the RIPE NCC is asked to send very clear signals about IPv6 to future applicants. That's something that doesn't belong in the policy text, but is absolutely pertinent to this proposal, and my feeling is that it'll be an overall improvement. More importantly, it's something that can be worked on over time so that we do end up with a systematic improvement. (So to be clear: I support the policy as is in last call.) All the best, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Project Manager web: www.heanet.ie HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660-3666
Hi Dave,
On 22 Jan 2015, at 18:12, "Dave Wilson" <dave.wilson@heanet.ie<mailto:dave.wilson@heanet.ie>> wrote:
This proposal looks harsh because all a proposal can do is changing the policy text and, taken on its own, that appears to be a negative change. Might as well do something, right? But "something is better than nothing" is just not effective; in fact the thrust of my talk at RIPE68 is that it's worse than useless.
Sorry I missed your talk, sounds interesting. I wouldn't say this proposal is negative, I just haven't read anyone explain how having an *any* IPv6 requirement negatively impacts IPv6 internet growth. How could it be worse than useless? Would it deter or slow a company's IPv6 adoption? I don't see how. In fact the IPv6 requirement in the current policy actually got Stefan Schiele's organisation on their unplanned road to v6, just like I said having their own v6 block may spark the interest of an organisation that previously only thought about IPv4:
On 22 Jan 2015, at 17:42, "Stefan Schiele" <st@sct.de<mailto:st@sct.de>> wrote:
The current policy actually had a positive effect on our company. The main reason for us to sign up as an LIR was to get more IPv4 addresses; and since we had to request an IPv6 allocation we wanted to have this set up and running. If it had been possible to get that /22 without an IPv6 address space we would probably still be using IPv4 only (the IPv4 address space we currently have is large enough for our business for the foreseeable future).
Since this policy had a positive effect on IPv6 awareness for us I simply deduce that it should have a positive effect for some other companies as well.
On 22 Jan 2015, at 18:12, "Dave Wilson" <dave.wilson@heanet.ie<mailto:dave.wilson@heanet.ie>> wrote: Here's one example for this particular case: the number of v6 assignments is not currently a useful measure of interest in IPv6, because it's polluted by assignments to people who only applied because they had to do so to get a /22.
Don't get me wrong, good measurements are very valuable, but more valuable than increasing the actual number of IPv6 adoptions and usage? I think that should be the focus.
As Gert said, the RIPE NCC is asked to send very clear signals about IPv6 to future applicants.
Indeed the NCC is doing a very good job of promoting IPv6. However reality is many organisations live outside the RIPE bubble and just want a last IPv4 block. Giving them a free IPv6 allocation to go home and play with (immediately, or in time) kinda seems like a good thing to me. Kind regards, James Sent from my iPhone On 22 Jan 2015, at 18:12, "Dave Wilson" <dave.wilson@heanet.ie<mailto:dave.wilson@heanet.ie>> wrote: Hello James, On 22/01/2015 12:38, Kennedy, James wrote: Wouldn't relaxing the text (as initially suggested) to require the LIR to have *any* form of IPv6, rather than removing it altogether, be more beneficial to general IPv6 adoption? I fear having no IPv6 requirement at all may encourage the LIR to look into alternatives, such as NAT or the transfer market. Honestly, I don't think it would, no. We'd get some anecdotes like we already have, but nothing systematic. This proposal looks harsh because all a proposal can do is changing the policy text and, taken on its own, that appears to be a negative change. Might as well do something, right? But "something is better than nothing" is just not effective; in fact the thrust of my talk at RIPE68 is that it's worse than useless. Here's one example for this particular case: the number of v6 assignments is not currently a useful measure of interest in IPv6, because it's polluted by assignments to people who only applied because they had to do so to get a /22. As Gert said, the RIPE NCC is asked to send very clear signals about IPv6 to future applicants. That's something that doesn't belong in the policy text, but is absolutely pertinent to this proposal, and my feeling is that it'll be an overall improvement. More importantly, it's something that can be worked on over time so that we do end up with a systematic improvement. (So to be clear: I support the policy as is in last call.) All the best, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Project Manager web: www.heanet.ie<http://www.heanet.ie> HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660-3666
Sorry for joining the discussion too late Gert, only caught my eye today :) Regards, James
On 22 Jan 2015, at 23:01, "Kennedy, James" <jkennedy@libertyglobal.com> wrote:
Hi Dave,
On 22 Jan 2015, at 18:12, "Dave Wilson" <dave.wilson@heanet.ie<mailto:dave.wilson@heanet.ie>> wrote:
This proposal looks harsh because all a proposal can do is changing the policy text and, taken on its own, that appears to be a negative change. Might as well do something, right? But "something is better than nothing" is just not effective; in fact the thrust of my talk at RIPE68 is that it's worse than useless.
Sorry I missed your talk, sounds interesting. I wouldn't say this proposal is negative, I just haven't read anyone explain how having an *any* IPv6 requirement negatively impacts IPv6 internet growth. How could it be worse than useless? Would it deter or slow a company's IPv6 adoption? I don't see how. In fact the IPv6 requirement in the current policy actually got Stefan Schiele's organisation on their unplanned road to v6, just like I said having their own v6 block may spark the interest of an organisation that previously only thought about IPv4:
On 22 Jan 2015, at 17:42, "Stefan Schiele" <st@sct.de<mailto:st@sct.de>> wrote:
The current policy actually had a positive effect on our company. The main reason for us to sign up as an LIR was to get more IPv4 addresses; and since we had to request an IPv6 allocation we wanted to have this set up and running. If it had been possible to get that /22 without an IPv6 address space we would probably still be using IPv4 only (the IPv4 address space we currently have is large enough for our business for the foreseeable future).
Since this policy had a positive effect on IPv6 awareness for us I simply deduce that it should have a positive effect for some other companies as well.
On 22 Jan 2015, at 18:12, "Dave Wilson" <dave.wilson@heanet.ie<mailto:dave.wilson@heanet.ie>> wrote: Here's one example for this particular case: the number of v6 assignments is not currently a useful measure of interest in IPv6, because it's polluted by assignments to people who only applied because they had to do so to get a /22.
Don't get me wrong, good measurements are very valuable, but more valuable than increasing the actual number of IPv6 adoptions and usage? I think that should be the focus.
As Gert said, the RIPE NCC is asked to send very clear signals about IPv6 to future applicants.
Indeed the NCC is doing a very good job of promoting IPv6. However reality is many organisations live outside the RIPE bubble and just want a last IPv4 block. Giving them a free IPv6 allocation to go home and play with (immediately, or in time) kinda seems like a good thing to me.
Kind regards, James
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Jan 2015, at 18:12, "Dave Wilson" <dave.wilson@heanet.ie<mailto:dave.wilson@heanet.ie>> wrote:
Hello James,
On 22/01/2015 12:38, Kennedy, James wrote: Wouldn't relaxing the text (as initially suggested) to require the LIR to have *any* form of IPv6, rather than removing it altogether, be more beneficial to general IPv6 adoption? I fear having no IPv6 requirement at all may encourage the LIR to look into alternatives, such as NAT or the transfer market.
Honestly, I don't think it would, no. We'd get some anecdotes like we already have, but nothing systematic.
This proposal looks harsh because all a proposal can do is changing the policy text and, taken on its own, that appears to be a negative change. Might as well do something, right? But "something is better than nothing" is just not effective; in fact the thrust of my talk at RIPE68 is that it's worse than useless.
Here's one example for this particular case: the number of v6 assignments is not currently a useful measure of interest in IPv6, because it's polluted by assignments to people who only applied because they had to do so to get a /22.
As Gert said, the RIPE NCC is asked to send very clear signals about IPv6 to future applicants. That's something that doesn't belong in the policy text, but is absolutely pertinent to this proposal, and my feeling is that it'll be an overall improvement. More importantly, it's something that can be worked on over time so that we do end up with a systematic improvement.
(So to be clear: I support the policy as is in last call.)
All the best, Dave
-- Dave Wilson, Project Manager web: www.heanet.ie<http://www.heanet.ie> HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660-3666
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Dave Wilson wrote:
Hello James,
On 22/01/2015 12:38, Kennedy, James wrote:
Wouldn't relaxing the text (as initially suggested) to require the LIR to have *any* form of IPv6, rather than removing it altogether, be more beneficial to general IPv6 adoption? I fear having no IPv6 requirement at all may encourage the LIR to look into alternatives, such as NAT or the transfer market.
Honestly, I don't think it would, no. We'd get some anecdotes like we already have, but nothing systematic.
This proposal looks harsh because all a proposal can do is changing the policy text and, taken on its own, that appears to be a negative change. Might as well do something, right? But "something is better than nothing" is just not effective; in fact the thrust of my talk at RIPE68 is that it's worse than useless.
Here's one example for this particular case: the number of v6 assignments is not currently a useful measure of interest in IPv6, because it's polluted by assignments to people who only applied because they had to do so to get a /22.
As Gert said, the RIPE NCC is asked to send very clear signals about IPv6 to future applicants. That's something that doesn't belong in the policy text, but is absolutely pertinent to this proposal, and my feeling is that it'll be an overall improvement. More importantly, it's something that can be worked on over time so that we do end up with a systematic improvement.
(So to be clear: I support the policy as is in last call.)
+1 Cheers, Daniel _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
Hi, On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:38:39PM +0100, Stefan Schiele wrote:
I don't consider this argument as being addressed by simply asking the RIPE NCC to send out clear signals that IPv6 is important. There is a difference between being forced to request an IPv6 allocation to receive IPv4 space from the final /8 and the RIPE NCC sending out some signals regarding IPv6.
It is, but I have to make a decision how to go ahead if many members of the community support the proposal, while a single argument is brought in opposition - "stop the proposal" (which would mean "nothing gets anywhere, ever") or "understand the concerns and find a way that will at least bring some compromise". [..]
The proposed policy change will speed up the shortage of IPv4 space; and therefore I still strongly oppose this proposal.
It will not - people who want the last /22 for speculation can have it today perfectly fine. Forcing them to take a (free) /32 with it will not make them more conservative - it sends a message ("hey! think of IPv6!") and we can convey that message in other ways, too.
By the way, this proposal would increase prices on the IPv4 transfer market (due to it speeding up the shortening of the free IPv4 address space); and that is generally nothing that's good for the community, either.
This is handwaving based on assumptions... Anyway, there is a group working on a proposal to prevent exactly this: speculation with the last /22 allocations ("open LIR, grab /22, sell it, close LIR, open new LIR, ..."). The policy proposal discussed here has really no influence on people that want to speculate - nothing stops them form accepting the free /32 together with the /22, sell the /22, return the /32, and close the LIR... Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hello, I'd like to state again, that sticking to the current policy is only hurting people that have already adopted IPv6 using PI space. "The bad guys" that aren't even planning to ever adopt IPv6 will happily reserve an IPv6 block just to get more IPv4 addresses. I hope this message gets across to the people who oppose 2014-04. You're not helping your own cause. For more information, read the archives of the 2014-04 discussion from last year. -- +358 4567 02048 / http://www.trex.fi/ Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy `What I need,' shouted Ford, by way of clarifying his previous remarks, `is a strong drink and a peer-group.' -- Douglas Adams, Life the Universe and Everything
Hi Aleksi,
I'd like to state again, that sticking to the current policy is only hurting people that have already adopted IPv6 using PI space. "The bad guys" that aren't even planning to ever adopt IPv6 will happily reserve an IPv6 block just to get more IPv4 addresses.
And I state again, changing instead of removing the policy will make the same. Just allowing IPv6 PI space to be valid to request the IPv4 will do the same. And as stated before, lot of LIRs are adopting IPv6 only because the were forced to request an IPv6 Alloc. All those future LIRs who, as many cases, would go in for IPv6 only because they are forced to request the IPv6, with this removal, they wont do. Please, stop saying the removal is the only solution when, at least there is one solution much better than this. Of course, the community said yes so all we (the ones opposing) will accept as is. We are not going to ragequit. Consensous happens and, as we say here, it never rains please everyone. (Dont know if the translation is good, but for sure you all understand what I mean) Cheers, -- Daniel Baeza
Hi Aleksi, I don't think anyone wants to keep the policy as it is. I back the calls (albeit too late now in the policy process) to change the text so it includes organisations that have *any* IPv6, including PI. Simple really. James -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Aleksi Suhonen Sent: 23 January 2015 11:02 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 using an IPv4 policy to force IPv6 adoption Hello, I'd like to state again, that sticking to the current policy is only hurting people that have already adopted IPv6 using PI space. "The bad guys" that aren't even planning to ever adopt IPv6 will happily reserve an IPv6 block just to get more IPv4 addresses. I hope this message gets across to the people who oppose 2014-04. You're not helping your own cause. For more information, read the archives of the 2014-04 discussion from last year. -- +358 4567 02048 / http://www.trex.fi/ Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy `What I need,' shouted Ford, by way of clarifying his previous remarks, `is a strong drink and a peer-group.' -- Douglas Adams, Life the Universe and Everything
participants (10)
-
Aleksi Suhonen -
Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) -
Daniel Davis -
Daniel Stolpe -
Dave Wilson -
Elvis Daniel Velea -
Gert Doering -
Kennedy, James -
Marius Catrangiu -
Stefan Schiele